Texting While Learning

I didn't text when I was in college. I didn't text because I was an undergraduate from 1990-1994, during the pretexting era. But I probably doodled once or a million times.

I drew this stick figure recently when I showed a documentary during class. I usually take notes when I show a film during class. This time, I just felt like making a self-portrait. It also serves as commentary about different things that people might be doing during class. Simply put, our attention is divided. It always has been and always will be. Students can text, doodle, and daydream. I can ask students to put away their texting machines, but I can't ask them to stop daydreaming. I would like their attention, and I try to maintain it, but I can't command it.

I have tried different approaches during the texting era. One semester I asked students to help me craft a mobile device policy. The semester didn't turn out much differently than when I had a customary policy on my syllabus asking students not to use their devices during class. In other words, the semester was kind of like any other: some students didn't use their phones during class, others did.

I think Nathan Palmer makes a good point about this subject when he writes: "I’m not sold on the idea that the time and energy it takes to get students to put away their phones is really worth it." I agree with Nathan that I don't want to use up my goodwill by policing students' cell phone use. My views on this issue might change in the future. For now, I'm lenient about cell phones in the classroom and my approach is to let students figure out for themselves if its in their best interest to text during class. My judgment, at this time, is that the occasional use of devices during class for non-class purposes does not interfere in a significant way with the process of learning. And I like having the ability to prompt students to use their devices to investigate something we're talking about during a class session.

Research confirms what we already know if we spend any time at all in a classroom: students often use their devices during class for non-class purposes. We can try to prohibit the use of devices. We can be lenient about devices. We can encourage students to make use of their devices for class purposes. There are lots of things we can do. If we're lenient, it doesn't automatically mean that all device use is acceptable. There are cases when we might judge a student's use of a device to be too distracting to other people in the room.

@Studygirl_1 @pegodaaj distraction is the deal-breaker tho, any device use in class that becomes distracting to me or others is an issue
— Rhonda Ragsdale (@profragsdale) October 27, 2013

I don't think there is a single answer or "best practice" for what to do about devices in the classroom. Instructors have to determine what they think is the best approach for the learning environment they want to create in their classroom.

@CreateSociology I don't mid stopping for a min so they can tweet something or look something up - it gives time 4 the learning 2 breathe
— Rhonda Ragsdale (@profragsdale) October 28, 2013

I think it's good when students are exposed to a variety of policies. And I think it makes sense for instructors to experiment with different ways of handling the situation. It helps me to share information and compare notes on how we respond to students using devices during class time. I'm always interested in hearing what other instructors and students think about this matter. I hope instructors and students will add their comments to this post. I'm interested in what kind of policy you prefer: "strict," "flexible," or whatever else you have tried or experienced. I like to think we're doing the best we can to figure this out together.

Making Family Memories

It’s pumpkin day, so I am happy. The farm opens to the public at 10:00. Like most days, we’re on a schedule. Two-year-old Mack will need a nap around 1:00. It’s drizzling and not very warm, but if the weather stays this way and Mack and his five-year-old brother Troy go with the flow, then we can cram a few hours of family fun time into the morning. Tina, my wife, grabs juice boxes and fruit snacks for the boys. I have my 86 cent cup of coffee from McDonalds. We are ready to go.

It’s a thirty minute drive from our subdivision to the farm. It isn’t a picturesque drive through the countryside. It’s a boring landscape except for the last five minutes. But the least of our worries is the view from our Kia Sorrento. Mack is off to a rocky start. This little person has peculiar habits. He likes to carry a spoon and rubber ball wherever we go. And he frequently drops one or the other. He drops the spoon just as we exit the subdivision, and proceeds to shout at us to make it right. Troy reads aloud from one of the half dozen or so books in his lap. He loves to read. He hasn’t yet figured out how to read to himself. So he reads out loud. Loudly. Mack continues to yell at Tina and me, prompting us to holler back at him. This isn’t the happy family experience we had in mind. Suddenly the noise subsides and we are treated to a mostly quiet ride. And then it starts pouring. Tina has a sour look on her face. I know what she’s thinking—maybe we should turn around—but a U-turn isn’t part of the script. We keep going. As we pull into the pumpkin farm, a good tune comes on the radio: “Love Will Find A Way” by Pablo Cruise. The song is unbelievably pleasant. I don’t want to get out of the car until it ends. So I turn up the volume and wait. And then we are ready for fun.

It’s still raining, so there aren’t a lot of people at the farm. Troy and Mack each get to enjoy a pony ride. First Mack, then Troy. I jog alongside the pony in a circle two times trying to get a picture of at least one of our sons having fun, but I fail. So there is not yet photographic evidence that family fun occurred. After the pony rides we catch a hayride to the pumpkin patch. The rain stops and the sun begins to shine. We jump off the wagon to search for pumpkins. There is mud, so the kids are happy. Pumpkins and mud are a guaranteed recipe for fun. I am not a skilled photographer, but I have my eye on a bench that I think will make for a nice picture. After we find our pumpkins, we put the boys and their pumpkins on a bench and capture the happiness. Snap! This is what it’s all about. We have a picture of our boys together, smiling. This becomes a family memory, not only of the rainy-turned-sunny day, but also of our boys being happy and silly. It will also remind us of how Mack likes to keep a sock on one of his hands. He really is a quirky bird. He is an endearing character, which makes it easier to endure the terrible twos. Tina posts the picture to Facebook. The picture is met with approval from the network. Smiles all around. On the return hayride, Tina and I make small talk with a few strangers. A woman grumbles about getting mud on her clothes, but catches herself and changes her tune. She says, tone adjusted, something like: “It’s all about the experience, right?” She’s exactly right. We’re here to have an experience. We want to feel something different. We want some enjoyment in this too often stressful life. A hayride with pumpkins, mud, rain and then sun does the trick just fine. This is a lovely experience. A lovely experience with family. Family fun time makes us happy.

The ride home is uneventful. We stop at a pizzeria to get some slices to go. Once home, we quickly eat lunch so Mack can nap. He shifts into nap mode like a pro. It’s a relief when things go according to plan.

And many days later, as I reflect on our mini-adventure, the Pablo Cruise song remains stuck in my head. That’s okay with me. I don’t mind hearing a song about love again and again and again. The end.

Thought for the Day from Howard Becker

"Elites, ruling classes, bosses, adults, men, Caucasians--superordinate groups generally--maintain their power as much by controlling how people define the world, its components, and its possibilities, as by the use of more primitive forms of control. They may use primitive means to establish hegemony. But control based on the manipulation of definitions and labels works more smoothly and costs less; superordinates prefer it. The attack on hierarchy begins with an attack on definitions, labels, and conventional conceptions of who's who and what's what."

Howard Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Excerpt from the chapter "Labelling Theory Reconsidered," pp. 204-205 in the edition I have (New York: The Free Press, 1997). The chapter is based on a paper presented at the British Sociological Association in April, 1971.

Covered: A Sociological Film About Tattoos

I show the film Covered in my Introduction to Sociology course. The filmmaker is Beverly Yuen Thompson, a sociologist at Siena College. The film is 58 minutes. I show approximately 35 minutes of the film and use the remainder of class time for discussion. I've shown it to three different classes and what stands out is the variety of reactions I get from students. I had the mistaken assumption that the current generation of college students would be "all in" about tattoos. I figured they would think tattoos are cool, period. In reality, students have mixed reactions in talking about tattoos. Keep in mind the film focuses on women who have a lot of tattoos (you perhaps gathered that from the movie title. It's called Covered, not Little Tattoos You Won't Even Notice).

I highly recommend showing this film to students. The first part of the film focuses on reactions that women get in public and from family members. One woman in the film talks about the frustration of being stopped by strangers who ask about her tattoos: "I'm not a mannequin that you can just come up and look at the merchandise," she says. Another participant in the film used the phrase "tattoo etiquette" in saying that the public hasn't yet figured out how to respond to people with a lot of tattoos.

A really interesting part of the film shows disapproval from family members. There's a great scene featuring the filmmaker with her mother. One of the tattoos Thompson has is of her father, who doesn't know she has tattoos. "If he found out," her mother says, "he'd probably have a heart attack." In an interview of another mother and daughter, the daughter says she wants to get a tattoo of her mother. The mother replies: "No...It's no good for me.....Do it when I die."

Another excellent section of the film focuses on the experiences of women as tattoo artists. They talk about breaking into what has traditionally been a male industry. One tattooist talks about not always being taken seriously when customers walk through the door. She says: "Even today, after almost thirty years, sometimes I'll be tattooing a man, and people will walk in, and they'll ask the man the question." Another tattooist mentions that she is asked "Do you tattoo guys?" She laughs and wonders if people ever ask male artists if they tattoo women. On the other hand, artists talk about the positive response they get as tattooists. One says that women are more comfortable getting tattooed by women (especially in a "risque" area of their body). Another artist notes there are "possessive husbands or boyfriends that won't let a man touch their girlfriends or wives." An artist suggests that the stigma around women tattooists has lessened since she began her career. So the industry landscape has changed and continues to change.

When I ask students to respond to the film, I hear several different comments, but have observed a few themes. Some students will say they like tattoos if they have meaning.These students dislike "random" tattoos. This usually leads to other students jumping in and saying that all tattoos have meaning, even when the meaning is not obvious and apparent. Other students wonder if it's possible to get a job if they are heavily tattooed. That sentiment leads to good discussion and elicits different perspectives. Students have also talked about disapproval from family members after getting tattoos. Others beam with pride when they talk about their tattoos and the tattoos they would like to get in the future. In all, the film opens the door for students to think about the sociology of tattoos. I love the film and am inspired by the creative approach Thompson takes to doing sociology.

America is in a Slump

I am grumpy. I think it has to do with America's celebrities, politicians, and op-ed columnists. I think we need new ones. Give us new celebrities, better politicians, and fresh op-ed columnists. Bring us a new fast-food industry. Gift us with an improved cultural infrastructure. I would probably still be grumpy. But there's caffeine for that. I did shake off my grumpiness for a few minutes today while driving around town in my Hyundai. I spent those few minutes rocking out to Bad Company. This probably does not help my credibility. The end.


P.S. On a more serious note, America is a low-wage society.

Fantasy Football -- The Case of C.J. Spiller

I have never played fantasy football. Everything I know about it is based on what I hear from friends who participate and from listening to sports talk radio. I do watch the NFL--something I feel conflicted about, one reason being the violence and damage that players experience. I am a Buffalo Bills fan. Simply put, I root for the home team. I live ten minutes from Ralph Wilson stadium. I'm in a better mood on Monday when the Bills win on Sunday. That's how it goes for a lot of us in Western New York.

After the Bills earned a surprising victory against the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday (September 29), I listened to some of the post-game chatter on local radio station WGR 550. I heard host Sal Capaccio (@SalSports) draw attention to the insults that fantasy football fans were hurling at Bills running back C.J. Spiller on Twitter. What he said on the radio is similar to what he wrote on Twitter:

I love fantasy football too. But search for "CJ Spiller" on Twitter, you'll see the shallow end of the gene pool simply bc of a fantasy game
— Sal Capaccio (@SalSports) September 29, 2013

On the radio, Capaccio sounded genuinely outraged at what people were tweeting about Spiller. He didn't want to repeat what people were saying on Twitter. He pretty much suggested that listeners see for themselves. In all, Capaccio came off as sincere in condemning people who said hostile things about Spiller. And why were fantasy football fans upset at Spiller? He rushed for 77 yards against the Ravens without scoring a touchdown--not a good day in fantasy football land. From my perspective, Spiller played fine. Aside from regularly playing with injuries, Spiller recently has had to cope with a tragedy involving a family member. With this in mind, I don't think most fans of the Buffalo Bills would be angry with Spiller for "only" rushing for 77 yards. But Fantasy Football fans play by different rules. They apparently get very serious and angry if players on their fantasy teams don't perform in a way that satisfies them.

Out of curiosity, I searched "CJ Spiller fantasy football" and other similar phrases on Twitter and saw a range of reactions to Spiller's performance against the Ravens. I won't embed the negative tweets in this post. You can do the same search if you want to see what people have said (and are still saying) about Spiller. Instead of the actual tweets, here are some examples of what came up in my search:

-"I hate you CJ Spiller."
-"Thanks for nothing CJ Spiller."
-"Do you enjoy being a shitty fantasy football player and tanking your career?"
-"Thank you for getting hurt and being a horseshit fantasy player."
-"Get your shit together, you're killing my fantasy team."
-"You need to get it together and get me more fantasy points bro."
-"CJ Spiller is the absolute worst first round fantasy pick in history. I hope he tears his ACL so I can force myself to bench him."

There are actually ones more hostile than what I've included. I wasn't shocked to find that people write things like this on Twitter. What did surprise me was that many of them were tweeted at C.J. Spiller. Until I searched, I didn't know that people actually say these things directly to the players. I suppose this means that some people feel entitled to say hostile things to players via Twitter.

Also interesting, though, was to see a lot of people tweeting supportive things about Spiller. By comparison, it looks as though there might actually be more people writing positive things about Spiller and directly to Spiller. Here are a few examples of people keeping it positive (and notice that Spiller seems to be taking this in stride and able to put it in perspective):

@CJSPILLER you're on my fantasy team and I still got love for you!! #RollTigers #BeatCuse
— Greg Toggweiler (@gregtoggweiler) September 30, 2013

@CJSPILLER I got you on my fantasy team but I'm not sweating it. A #Bills win is more important to me. #youstilltheman #allaboutwins
— Hazem Zaki (@_SportsNut) September 30, 2013

Football players probably don't get enough credit for how they handle personal attacks. Even accounting for the point that professional football players are public figures, and taking into consideration that being on Twitter makes it possible for fans to communicate with players in a nasty manner, this does not mean that players deserve to be spoken to in such terrible ways. But I am probably just a naive person who thinks that people should be treated with respect and dignity. I suppose that's a fantasy too.

First TVs, Then Fox News on TV

Increasingly, Fox News seems to be the default station in restaurants and other establishments that I visit. I live in Western New York (also known as the Buffalo-Niagara region), a place that a friend once described as "a red part of a blue state." There obviously was a time when flat screen televisions weren't playing in grocery stores and diners; now it's common for me to see Fox News airing in these and other places.

The experience of being in airports with CNN on every screen is familiar to many. When CNN is on the screen, it's easier for me to grasp. After all, CNN was the first cable news operation, and is still considered by some to be a neutral news source (or at least to provide the appearance thereof). If Fox and MSNBC occupy polar opposites of the cable news spectrum in their overall presentation of politics, CNN exists somewhere in-between, at times closer to MSNBC, other times nearer to Fox.

It's rare for me to see MSNBC airing in local establishments. MSNBC projects something resembling the liberal viewpoint, however 'liberal' is to be understood when presented by a corporate-cable news entertainment operation. MSNBC hosts and pundits don't always flatter President Obama and other Democrats. But the channel tends to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt in its construction of 'progressive' politics and viewpoints. MSNBC, in a 'lean forward' corporate way, sends signals about politics and culture that are qualitatively different than those that come from Fox News.

The most recent instance of seeing Fox News on a screen in public was when I went to a diner with my family. I'd never been to the diner before. We were seated at a booth. Two big TV screens were easy for me to see: a local news station on one and Fox News on the other. A music station was playing, so the TVs were muted. So one screen was Fox News (known for sensational headlines and coverage obviously unflattering to President Obama and anything approximating the liberal cause). The juxtaposition was interesting: local news doing what local news does (crime stories, pet stories, profiles of local businesses, weather forecasts) alongside Fox News (consistent undermining of President Obama and other Democrat politicians).

I'm not sure what place Fox News has in a diner. Or a supermarket. If you're wondering, it's not MSNBC that I want to see on these screens. The torso and head of Chris Hayes or Ed Schultz doesn't naturally fit into a diner or supermarket scheme either. I don't walk into a coffee shop hoping to see Morning Joe on the screen ("brewed by Starbucks"). I don't know any self-described liberal who eagerly anticipates the next opinion from Ed Rendell or Eugene Robinson. Corporate cable news-entertainment from any station at the pub and elsewhere in public feels to me like an intrusion; an unwanted and unnecessary infusion of politics into my everyday life.

All of this to say: It used to be that television screens were reserved for sports bars and airports, now they appear in more and more places where I live, and usually set to Fox News. Why? To what effect?

I hope a few readers will share observations. What is it like in your daily life--TVs set to The Weather Channel, ESPN, local news, or something else? How do you feel about what's on? In terms of the stations that are on, what messages do you think are being sent to patrons?

.